Search

Contains fulltext : 243959.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) PURPOSE: The ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) provide disease-specific rules for accurate variant interpretation. Using the hearing loss-specific American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines, the Hearing Loss VCEP (HL VCEP) illustrates the utility of expert specifications in variant interpretation. METHODS: A total of 157 variants across nine HL genes, previously submitted to ClinVar, were curated by the HL VCEP. The curation process involved collecting published and unpublished data for each variant by biocurators, followed by bimonthly meetings of an expert curation subgroup that reviewed all evidence and applied the HL-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines to reach a final classification. RESULTS: Before expert curation, 75% (117/157) of variants had single or multiple variants of uncertain significance (VUS) submissions (17/157) or had conflicting interpretations in ClinVar (100/157). After applying the HL-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines, 24% (4/17) of VUS and 69% (69/100) of discordant variants were resolved into benign (B), likely benign (LB), likely pathogenic (LP), or pathogenic (P). Overall, 70% (109/157) variants had unambiguous classifications (B, LB, LP, P). We quantify the contribution of the HL-specified ACMG/AMP codes to variant classification. CONCLUSION: Expert specification and application of the HL-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines effectively resolved discordant interpretations in ClinVar. This study highlights the utility of ClinGen VCEPs in supporting more consistent clinical variant interpretation.

While newborns and children with hearing loss are routinely offered genetic testing, adults are rarely clinically tested for a genetic etiology. One clinically actionable result from genetic testing in children is the discovery of variants in syndromic hearing loss genes. EYA4 is a known hearing loss gene which is also involved in important pathways in cardiac tissue. The pleiotropic effects of rare EYA4 variants are poorly understood and their prevalence in a large cohort has not been previously reported. We investigated cardio-auditory phenotypes in 11,451 individuals in a large biobank using a rare variant, genome-first approach to EYA4. We filtered 256 EYA4 variants carried by 6737 participants to 26 rare and predicted deleterious variants carried by 42 heterozygotes. We aggregated predicted deleterious EYA4 gene variants into a combined variable (i.e. "gene burden") and performed association studies across phenotypes compared to wildtype controls. We validated findings with replication in three independent cohorts and human tissue expression data. EYA4 gene burden was significantly associated with audiometric-proven HL (p = [Formula: see text], Mobitz Type II AV block (p = [Formula: see text]) and the syndromic presentation of HL and primary cardiomyopathy (p = 0.0194). Analyses on audiogram, echocardiogram, and electrocardiogram data validated these associations. Prior reports have focused on identifying variants in families with severe or syndromic phenotypes. In contrast, we found, using a genotype-first approach, that gene burden in EYA4 is associated with more subtle cardio-auditory phenotypes in an adult medical biobank population, including cardiac conduction disorders which have not been previously reported. We show the value of using a focused approach to uncover human disease related to pleiotropic gene variants and suggest a role for genetic testing in adults presenting with hearing loss.

PurposeProper interpretation of genomic variants is critical to successful medical decision making based on genetic testing results. A fundamental prerequisite to accurate variant interpretation is the clear understanding of the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a semi-quantitative framework to assign clinical validity to gene-disease relationships.MethodsThe ClinGen Hearing Loss Gene Curation Expert Panel (HL GCEP) uses this framework to perform evidence-based curations of genes present on testing panels from 17 clinical laboratories in the Genetic Testing Registry. The HL GCEP curated and reviewed 142 genes and 164 gene-disease pairs, including 105 nonsyndromic and 59 syndromic forms of hearing loss.ResultsThe final outcome included 82 Definitive (50%), 12 Strong (7%), 25 Moderate (15%), 32 Limited (20%), 10 Disputed (6%), and 3 Refuted (2%) classifications. The summary of each curation is date stamped with the HL GCEP approval, is live, and will be kept up-to-date on the ClinGen website (https://search.clinicalgenome.org/kb/gene-validity).ConclusionThis gene curation approach serves to optimize the clinical sensitivity of genetic testing while reducing the rate of uncertain or ambiguous test results caused by the interrogation of genes with insufficient evidence of a disease link.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants’ health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.